This is
an appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint
against a medical treatment center for failure to attach a
medical expert affidavit pursuant to NRS 41A.071. The
district court determined that the allegations in
appellant's complaint regarding the discharge of his son
from respondent's treatment center were for medical
malpractice, and because appellant did not attach a medical
expert affidavit, his complaint required dismissal under NRS
41A.071. Appellant contends that the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint because his claims are based in
ordinary negligence, not medical malpractice, and therefore,
an affidavit was not required. We agree as to appellant's
claims for negligence, social-worker malpractice, gross
negligence, negligence per se, and negligent hiring,
supervision, and training, and disagree as to his claim for
professional negligence. We therefore affirm in part, reverse
in part, and remand.

I.

We
accept as true the following facts alleged in appellant's
complaint: Appellant Lee Szymborski's (Szymborski) adult
son, Sean Szymborski (Sean), was admitted to Spring Mountain
Treatment Center (Spring Mountain) for care and treatment due
to self-inflicted wounds. When it came time to discharge
Sean, licensed social workers undertook the discharge
planning, but also delegated some tasks to a Masters of Arts
(MA). Szymborski and Sean had a turbulent relationship, and
Sean was discharged with diagnoses of psychosis and spice
abuse. A social worker documented that Szymborski directed a
case manager not to release Sean to Szymborski's home
upon discharge and that the case manager would help Sean find
alternative housing. Spring Mountain nurses also documented
that Sean did not want to live with his father, noting that
he grew agitated when talking about his father and expressed
trepidation about returning to his father's home. Due to
this ongoing conflict, Sean participated in treatment
planning to find housing independent of Szymborski.

On the
day of Sean's release, an MA met with Sean to confirm the
address of the apartment where Sean planned to live upon
discharge. The MA noted, and Sean's continuing patient
care plan confirmed, that Sean was vague about the
apartment's address and wanted to stop at his
father's house first to retrieve his debit card before
going to his own apartment. The MA and case manager never
verified that Sean had arranged to live elsewhere, and
informed Sean that they would only give him enough
money to take a taxi to his father's home. Spring
Mountain did not inform Szymborski that they were releasing
Sean, nor did they inform him that they were sending Sean to
his residence that day. After being dropped off, Sean
vandalized Szymborski's home, causing $20, 000 in
property damage, then disappeared until his arrest three
weeks later. Szymborski was not home when Sean arrived.

Szymborski
then filed a complaint with the State of Nevada Department of
Health and Human Services-Division of Public and Behavioral
Health (Division) about Sean's discharge and Spring
Mountain's disregard of the discharge planning
obligations imposed on it by NAC 449.332. After
investigation, the Division issued a report crediting
Szymborski's claims and finding that Spring Mountain
committed multiple violations of NAC 449.332.

In his
complaint, Szymborski asserted four claims against Spring
Mountain, its CEO, Daryl Dubroca, and various social workers
and MAs (collectively, Spring Mountain): negligence (count
I); professional negligence (count II); malpractice, gross
negligence, negligence per se (count III); and negligent
hiring, supervision, and training (count IV). Szymborski
attached the Division's report to his complaint, but not
an expert medical affidavit. Spring Mountain moved to dismiss
the complaint because Szymborski failed to attach an expert
medical affidavit pursuant to NRS 41A.071, [1] The district
court granted Spring Mountain's motion to dismiss,
finding that the claims in the complaint were for medical
malpractice and required an expert medical affidavit.
Szymborski appeals.

II.

"This
court rigorously reviews de novo a district court order
granting an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, accepting all of
the plaintiffs factual allegations as true and drawing every
reasonable inference in the plaintiffs favor to determine
whether the allegations are sufficient to state a claim for
relief." DeBoer v. Sr. Bridges of Sparks Fam.
Hosp,,128 Nev. 406, 409, 282 P.3d 727, 730 (2012). A
complaint should only be dismissed for failure to state a
claim if "it appears beyond a doubt that it could prove
no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle it to
relief." Id., at 410, 282 P.3d at 730 (internal
quotation marks omitted). In contrast, NRS 41A.071 provides
that "[i]f an action for medical malpractice ... is
filed in the district court, the district court shall dismiss
the action, without prejudice, if the action is filed without
a[ ] [medical expert] affidavit."[2]

A.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Spring
Mountain argues that because Szymborski&#39;s claims involve
employees of a hospital rendering services, the claims must
be for medical malpractice and NRS 41A.071&#39;s affidavit
requirement applies. However, when a hospital performs
nonmedical services, it can be liable under principles of
ordinary negligence. See Deboer, 128 Nev. at 411-12,
282 P.3d at 731-32 ("[A] healthcare-based
corporation&#39;s status as a medical facility cannot shield
it from other forms of tort liability when it acts outside of
the scope of medicine."). "[U]nder general
negligence standards, medical facilities have a duty to
exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm when they
furnish nonmedical services, " Id., at 412, 282
P.3d at 732. For example, in Deboer, the district
court erred in classifying the patient's claim as one for
medical malpractice as opposed to ordinary negligence because
the claim "was not related to medical diagnosis,
judgment, or ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.